By Frederick M. Hess
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Last Wednesday, President Trump incited a mob to assault
the U.S. Capitol as Congress sat in a joint session to certify the Electoral
College vote. The next day, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced her
resignation. DeVos minced no words in explaining her decision, nor in
explicitly calling out Trump for his seditious behavior. “There is no mistaking
the impact your rhetoric had on the situation, and it is the inflection point
for me,” she wrote in her resignation letter.
During her tempestuous tenure in office, DeVos evoked
strong feelings among her critics. Many disagreed vehemently with her views on
school choice, religious freedom, and government regulation. They profusely
criticized her talk of “factory-model government schools” and often deemed her
ill-prepared for the role. Many thought she should never have agreed to serve
under Trump, or else should have resigned in response to his earlier
provocations. These complaints are legitimate and fair grounds for tough-minded
debate.
Yet, such disagreements do not justify or excuse the
poisonous politics of malice that DeVos has been subjected to over the past
four years — attacks that have taken a torch to the basic standards of public
discourse and democratic civility.
In response to DeVos’s resignation, National Education
Association president Becky Pringle felt moved to declare:
“Resigning 13 days before the end of this administration does nothing to erase
the harm Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has done to this country’s students,
their families and educators. She has failed our students yet again when they
needed her most. Her complicity, cowardice, and complete incompetence will be
her legacy.”
American Federation of Teachers president Randi
Weingarten responded to the news with a press
release that read, in its entirety: “Good riddance.”
A quick Google scan turns up a raft of such statements,
rife with vitriolic
claims of “cowardice and self-interest.”
I have known Pringle and Weingarten for many years.
However much we disagree, I respect them. But these remarks, issued at
precisely the moment that DeVos was breaking with Trump, were pointlessly
personal and poisonous — especially from officials representing millions of
educators. Unfortunately, they’re of a piece with the vilification that has been
heaped on DeVos over the past four years. The irony is that Pringle and
Weingarten have been among those who’ve — quite rightly — castigated Trump for his
endless assaults on civility.
During her tenure, I’ve frequently found attacks on DeVos
to be curiously unmoored from what she’s actually done in office. Many who
casually dismiss her as a ruinous force can only vaguely identify the bill of
particulars that they find so offensive, or have ultimately had to concede that
they aren’t actually familiar with, say, the specifics of the Title IX
rulemaking, CARES Act guidance, or Borrower’s Defense modifications that they
find so appalling. Really, they just hate DeVos.
DeVos was maligned from the moment she was nominated,
well before her freshly minted critics even knew much about her. Within 72
hours of DeVos being named secretary-designate, the New York Times
published an op-ed insisting that her nomination was “a
triumph of ideology over evidence that should worry anyone who wants to
improve results for children.” Salon added
that DeVos “would be terrible for public education in this country.”
Little-known candidates for secretary of education have
typically been accorded a genial reception, a norm that has much to recommend
it. President-elect Biden’s selection, Miguel Cardona, has (quite
appropriately) received respectful coverage. Indeed, it appears he’ll be given
every chance to demonstrate his mettle. That was equally true of predecessors
Margaret Spellings, Arne Duncan, and John King.
It’s true that DeVos was an outside-the-box choice and
(at least for those who imagine the U.S. Department of Education to be the
property of the education establishment) an “outsider.” But she had also been
board chair for the Alliance for School Choice, head of All Children Matter, a
board member for Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education, and a
Republican National committeewoman. Heck, she was labeled
a “pretty mainstream pick” by Democratic education heavyweight Andy Rotherham,
a former special assistant in the Clinton White House.
Nevertheless, DeVos was consistently held to arbitrary
double standards. Consider this: Should Miguel Cardona be held responsible for
the abysmal performance of Connecticut’s urban schools? For any reasonable
observer, the answer would be a resounding “no.” Cardona has only been
directing Connecticut’s education bureaucracy for a little over a year, and
before that he was a junior administrator in a modest school system. It would
be ludicrous to fault him for the longtime struggles of New Haven or Hartford.
Yet, while DeVos had never held a position of educational authority in
Detroit or Michigan, she was routinely blamed
by critics for the troubled plight of Detroit’s schools.
Those who step into the public square are choosing to
subject themselves to the rigors of public debate. That’s how democratic
government works. But civil, responsible government requires civility and
responsibility. In its absence, we may find ourselves unable to stand
shoulder-to-shoulder even in the face of sedition and insurrection.
No comments:
Post a Comment